No thank you, please sit down – Debating in Cambridge
Last night I went to the Cambridge Union Society, a debating club that has existed for more than a century, upheld the tradition of free speech and attracted numerous great speakers.
The first debate discussed whether fat Children should be taken away from their parents. Two speakers argued in favor, and two against. The rules of debating are very complex. Speeches are limited to a certain amount of time and interventions have to be granted by the speaker. In fact, the speaker can refuse an intervention by either politely saying “No, thank you” or are little bit rougher “Denied”.
The quality of the speeches and as well as the interventions were impressive. Short, to the point, witty, often spontaneously reacting to the development of the debate. And mind this, most participants were undergraduates which just started their university education.
The second debate of the evening discussed whether Nuclear Energy could be a solution to Climate Chance. A local Member of Parliament, a representative from Friends of the Earth and the winner of the world debating championship spoke against the issue, and a representative from the British Nuclear Industry, the Carbon Zero Society, and an engineer which flew to the North Pole in a hot-air ballon demanding nuclear energy spoke in favour.
The debate was very intense, lasted about two hours and a half without intermission. Expert statements and careful ridicul of the opposing sides followed each other. And again I was impressed how little shyness the students expressed when disagreeing with the experts.
The set-up of the room was such that both sides were sitting opposed to each other which creates a very intimate debating atmosphere. Even without microphones every word could be understood. And at the end, the audience was invited to vote on the issue by exciting through doors labelled “Aye” and “Noe”. I voted no, simply because I am quite happy that Germany stopped nuclear energy, even though it will take 30 years to turn off all of them.
Oktober 6th, 2007 at 16:04
Coal burning is an atrocity to nature that must be stopped or at least reduced; natural gas is great but expensive; oil is good, but will probably runout this century, or at least be hoarded to drive costs to impossible heights; wind power is good, if millions and millions of large, 2000kw or better turbines can be built, but can they; nuclear energy is the only practical answer. China and India will probably each build 300 or more plants this century; America should build hundreds (GE, a no-nonsense company, says that they can build plants from first concrete pour to reactor critical in 36 months); the NRC expects 29 license applications within the next three years.